The Oklahoma Bat

[Claude Koch]

Could somebody here explain to me the difference between the bat in Oklahoma that was found to have nucleic acids of the fungus, but not the spores, and not the fungus itself, and WNS.
The media, through the N.F. and the USDFW, has reported that WNS has spread to Oklahoma.
First of all, can this lone bat that has survived as of July 26, be considered to have WNS, or is this statement incorrect?
The bat has been reported to have come from a cave in Oklahoma.
Is this cave, which is not being revealed, a known cave, a popular cave, a rarely visited cave, or a newly dug open cave?
Without this evidence, partial as it is, understanding the relevance towards the possible spread by humans is highly questionable.
Thanks,
Claude Koch
Willamette Valley Grotto
Vice Chair/Librarian
Northwestern and Western Region Representative

[wyandottecaver]

Claude,

WNS is a "condition" it is characterized be various behaviours and physical signs that include presence of the fungus Geomyces destructans. though not necessarily visible to the naked eye.

Geomyces Destructans is a fungus. It is characterized by several physical traits. It is however slow and difficult to culture (one problem for the human transport cheerleaders) thus some genetic markers found in its DNA have been developed to help in rapid detection.

The genetic markers are currently being used as a fast test to indicate if the genetic "signature" of Geomyces is present without having to try (often with great difficulty) to culture it. Unfortunately, work by Hazel Barton seems to suggest that MANY species (maybe 30) of Geomyces may carry these same markers. this means the signature is analagous to looking for "mike J smith born in 1978" but only having mike J smith.

The Oklahoma bat had the genetic markers for Geomyces Destructans (which are really for a group of geomyces probably). But it had no clinical signs or behaviours for WNS (as far as I know). As far as whether the oklahoma bat has WNS... WNS bats can survive a while, especially if they can get food.

I believe (I may be wrong) the cave was a known hibernacula of a protected species and the bat was found during a regular survey. I seem to think it was gated, but am not certain at all.

[Leitmotiv]

And what does it mean when nucleic acids were found? I assume that "any" part of the fungus could be a "nucleic acid" whether it be a spore, or the full grown fungus itself. But if it was WNS or a spore, you would think they would specifically say that. So a nucleic acid to me suggests some state in between being a spore and being the full blown WNS.

I suppose if I wiped my saliva on a bat, you could find my nucleic acids too, but it doesn't mean I stuck around.

[PYoungbaer]

Claude,

Here's the ProMed posting on the Oklahoma bat and its testing by the NWHC lab in Madison:

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:57555::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,82782

As the testing has become more sophisticated, the USGS has developed a more nuanced categorization (as announced here on Cave Chat April 26:

Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp

As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.

The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology

Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.

Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.

[cavergirl]

Peter, this is the same info that was posted back in May. Has there been any further information about how, exactly, the "pattern of infection was not consistent with white-nose syndrome observed on bats from the eastern U.S." ?
and if there were no "characteristic conidia observed" and if this bat was not hibernating and presumably did not have white fungus (or did it??) what prompted the graduate student to collect the bat in the first place? Hopefully people aren't going around "collecting" bats for random testing?

[Claude Koch]

Hi Peter and All,
I do find this information and 'evidence' very interesting about James Selman Cave in Oklahoma and the undisclosed Missouri Cave, which seems to point towards much less of a chance for a 'caver to bat transmission' spread than what would happen if they were 'open' caves.
I did a 'snip and paste' of 2 paragraphs from the link that you posted in your last message about those 2 caves, which are found after my message.
Are these government agencies purposely trying to mislead the media with their 'partial' and 'biased' evidence, and now organized cavers, with their slideshows and media announcements? The more that I look into this, with being able to view the 'real' evidence that is available, it appears to wreak of nothing but bad propaganda.
Hmm....
Thank you,
Claude Koch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] Oklahoma
Date: 14 May 2010
From: Dixie Birch


Richard Hatcher is the Director of the Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), and we just spoke about closing the
cave to public access and possibly issuing a joint press release
early next week. Mr. Hatcher tells me that the cave is not generally
open to the public.

---------------------------------------------------------------
[3] Missouri
Date: 14 May 2010
From: Dena Matteson

The cave, owned by the Missouri Department of Conservation, is on the
Current River within the boundaries of Ozark National Scenic
Riverways. The name and location are withheld to avoid disturbance of
the cave, which contains many natural resources and several species
of bats. A cave gate on the entrance prevents trespassers from entering.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claude,

Here's the ProMed posting on the Oklahoma bat and its testing by the NWHC lab in Madison:

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:57555::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,82782

As the testing has become more sophisticated, the USGS has developed a more nuanced categorization (as announced here on Cave Chat April 26:

Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp

As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.

The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology

Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.

Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.

[Claude Koch]

Hi Peter,
It would seem to me that the 2 caves that were reported in Oklahoma and Missouri, that seem to be somewhat regulated caves from the report that you linked, would have a list of visitors that went into those caves. If those people didn't previously go to a WNS affected cave area back east, that would put a serious damper on the 'caver to bat' possible theory concerning those 2 caves.
Has this even been looked into?
The Central Oklahoma Grotto conducted a bat count, with pictures, in the Selman Cave System in February 2008 and 2009, according to their website.
Is this the same cave that is reported in the link that you posted earlier, as James Selman Cave?

Thanks,
Claude

Claude,

Here's the ProMed posting on the Oklahoma bat and its testing by the NWHC lab in Madison:

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:57555::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,82782

As the testing has become more sophisticated, the USGS has developed a more nuanced categorization (as announced here on Cave Chat April 26:

Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp

As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.

The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology

Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.

Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.

[Claude Koch]

Hi Peter,
So I guess the answers to my two previous questions are not known by you at this time?
Thanks,
Claude

Hi Peter,
It would seem to me that the 2 caves that were reported in Oklahoma and Missouri, that seem to be somewhat regulated caves from the report that you linked, would have a list of visitors that went into those caves. If those people didn't previously go to a WNS affected cave area back east, that would put a serious damper on the 'caver to bat' possible theory concerning those 2 caves.
Has this even been looked into?
The Central Oklahoma Grotto conducted a bat count, with pictures, in the Selman Cave System in February 2008 and 2009, according to their website.
Is this the same cave that is reported in the link that you posted earlier, as James Selman Cave?

Thanks,
Claude

Claude,

Here's the ProMed posting on the Oklahoma bat and its testing by the NWHC lab in Madison:

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:57555::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,82782

As the testing has become more sophisticated, the USGS has developed a more nuanced categorization (as announced here on Cave Chat April 26:

Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp

As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.

The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology

Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.

Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.

[PYoungbaer]

Sorry, Claude - I forgot about this thread - and got lost in all the quotes and cutting and pasting.

The Oklahoma Cave is the Selmen Cave System, yes, a major hibernaculum. I don't know about the extent of visitation, and the statements by Richard Hatcher are confusing: talking about closing the cave to public access, but then saying it's not generally accessible by the public.

The Missouri Cave is clearly gated, so MDC should be able to identify visitors.

[Claude Koch]

Hi Peter,
Yes, I figured that you forgot about this thread.
But that is understandable, as you are probably the busiest above ground caver in the U.S.
Yes, that statement by Richard Hatcher about the Selmen Cave System did leave me scratching my head with that contradiction.
Thanks for getting back to me on this thread.

On another note, at the NCA Regional that I attended a few weeks back, I informed Pat Ormsbee of the Willamette N.F. and the other interested cavers in attendance of her WNS presentation, about what I had learned over the previous 2 weeks concerning Hellhole, the Selmen Cave System, and the undisclosed, but gated, Missouri cave.
She did not know any of the details regarding the last two caves, yet was giving a slideshow about WNS being wrongfully reported in Oklahoma and Missouri in those 2 caves.
Her answer to not doing her homework, was that 'some spores' can last up to 50 years in cave dirt.
Not neccessarily geomyces destructans spores, but 'some spores'.
This is another misleading and vague statement by her that could suggest that geomyces destructans spores could survive for 50 years in cave dirt. It seems that a statement like that, if the N.F chooses to go with it, would have detrimental effects on 'ALL CAVING' in the future on N.F. lands forever.
A scary thought, indeed.
Thanks,
Claude

Sorry, Claude - I forgot about this thread - and got lost in all the quotes and cutting and pasting.

The Oklahoma Cave is the Selmen Cave System, yes, a major hibernaculum. I don't know about the extent of visitation, and the statements by Richard Hatcher are confusing: talking about closing the cave to public access, but then saying it's not generally accessible by the public.

The Missouri Cave is clearly gated, so MDC should be able to identify visitors.

[PYoungbaer]

A number of the researchers attempting to culture Geomyces destructans have reported that it is difficult to culture due to being overwhelmed by other fungi, including other Geomyces species. In terms of how long the fungus remains viable in the environment, we have three pieces of research - none of them published as yet.

First, the sediment sampling that was done in 2008 resulted in less than 30 samples being analyzed (difficulties with the sensitivity of the test and inability to distinguish between G.d. and others), but the fungus was present on sediments in some previously affected WNS sites, and not in any unaffected sites.

Second, the Vermont mine experiments where healthy Wisconsin bats were placed in known WNS sites. Some of the bats got the fungal infection, but many died before getting the infection. I've heard the primary investigator speak at least twice on the subject, and both times he said they don't know why the bats died as analysis hasn't been completed.

Third, the NYDEC investigators sampling in the environment note that the Geomyces destructans spores haven't been found except on decaying bats, not on other surfaces, with the exception of in some mine drill holes. They observed that they are quickly overwhelmed by other fungal species, not unexpected in an energy-starved environment like a cave or mine where living entities compete for scarce resources. This project did observe viable conidia on cave gear, as well as in the colon and fecal matter (guano) of bats, which raises questions about the ability of bat predators to transmit viable spores.

Below are the two abstracts on the second and third citations above, presented at the Pittsburgh WNS Symposium in May. By the way, the three examples above are the only relevant transmission-related research projects to date (and, as I said, none published), and are the ones cited or referred to (non-specifically) by both the USFWS and USFS in their communications and decon protocols.

Investigations into the Environmental Transmission of
WNS to Hibernating Myotis lucifugus
ALAN C. HICKS1, JOSEPH C. OKONIEWSKI1, SCOTT R. DARLING 2,
DAVID N. REDELL3, RYAN B. SMITH2, RYAN I. VON LINDEN1, KATE E.
LANGWIG1, THOMAS INGERSOL4, JOEL FLEWELLING2, AND
CAROL U. METEYER5
1New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY
2 Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Rutland, VT
3 Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
4University of California at Berkley, Berkley, CA
5U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center,
Madison, WI
Project start date: October 2010
Project completion: April 2010
Addressing the white-nose syndrome (WNS) related decline in bats
requires in part, an understanding of the role played by environmental
transmission of the disease during the hibernating season. To further
that understanding , we transferred 79 Myotis lucifugus from a WNS
free mine in northern Wisconsin and released them into two WNS
positive mines in Vermont (Greely and Bridgewater), where native bats
had been excluded. Wing bands and uniquely marked data loggers or
similar masses were attached to each bat. We took elaborate
precautions to make sure that the introduced bats would not escape and
return to Wisconsin. Bats were released in each mine on October 26,
2009, and were subsequently visited on December 16, January 27,
February 18, March 18, and April 9, 2010. On each visit we recorded
the location of all bats encountered, collected dead, and severely
moribund, individuals for necropsy and photographed all animals on
roost so that we could check for visible evidence of Geomyces
destructans (G.d.) infection (the presumed causative agent of WNS).
Twenty one bats (12 of 41 at Bridgewater, 9 of 38 at Greely) were
never observed alive during these visits and presumably died from non-
WNS causes. Among the living observed on 12/16 (8 weeks postrelease),
15 of 24 (Greely) and 1 of 28 (Bridgewater) showed visible
evidence of a G.d. like infection. In Greely, all bats that had ever been
observed alive were dead by 2/18/2010. Four bats were still alive at
Bridgewater on 3/18/2010 one of which was still alive, but moribund
on 4/8/2008. We have not completed the examinations, or analysis of
data, so we cannot yet state how many mortalities can be attributed to
WNS. We discuss the likelihood of a positive finding and what it could
mean for disease management and the future of affected bat species.
[oral]

Detection of the Conidia of Geomyces destructans in
Northeast Hibernacula, at Maternal Colonies, and on
Gear – Some Findings Based on Microscopy and Culture
JOSEPH C. OKONIEWSKI1, JOHN HAINES2, ALAN C. HICKS1, KATE E.
LANGWIG1, RYAN I. VON LINDEN1, AND CHRISTOPHER A. DOBONY3
1New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY
2New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY
3Department of Defense, Fort Drum Military Installation,
Fort Drum, NY
Geomyces destructans, the apparent causal agent of white-nose
syndrome (WNS), produces enormous numbers of conidia (asexual
spores). These conidia can be readily identified with light microscopy
and can be cultured on standard media. In the last year we have
employed these techniques to detect the presence of G. destructans in
various investigations. Using a portable Burkhard sampler which
deposits airborne particles on two-sided tape mounted on a microscope
slide, we collected air samples (0.09 m3/sample) from WNS-affected
hibernacula in New York and Vermont. To date, examination of 36
samples from six hibernacula collected during the hibernation season
has yielded a total of seven positive results from three sites. Five of the
positive samples captured only one or two conidia. The highest conidia
count (109) was collected less than 0.5 m below a small group of WNSaffected
bats. All of the 33 samples collected at six hibernacula outside
of the hibernation season have been negative. Microscopic searches of
swab samples collected from surfaces in hibernacula on which airborne
conidia are likely to be deposited have, so far, yielded mostly negative
results. In contrast, swab samples from drill-holes at one mine (where
direct contact with bats is likely) were mostly positive. Attempts to
culture G. destructans from swabs of the same surfaces failed due to
rapid growth of other fungi. Conidia can frequently be found on
decomposed bat remains in WNS-affected hibernacula, although
numbers decline rapidly with time and the growth and activity of other
organisms. Findings at necropsy suggest that a lot of conidia are
swallowed in grooming during arousal bouts. These conidia can
comprise the bulk of material in fecal pellets produced during
hibernation. Conidia from the colon have been found to be viable on
culture. The fate and importance of this concentration of conidia in
fecal material awaits investigation. We have not yet found G.
destructans growing on anything in hibernacula except live or freshly
dead bats. At maternal colonies, swabbing of bats and direct media
inoculations collectively yielded positive results in both May (3/15) and
August (3/17) at Fort Drum, and in one of four bats at a colony in the
upper Hudson Valley in June. Sampling at a colony near Lake
Champlain (July, n=21) and another in the Finger Lakes (August,
n=11) was negative. Conidia of G. destructans were observed in swab
or rinse samples of apparel and a gear used in WNS-affected
hibernacula. [oral]

[cavergirl]

Peter, since you "forgot about this thread" I assume you never saw my post a few weeks ago:

Peter, this is the same info that was posted back in May. Has there been any further information about how, exactly, the "pattern of infection was not consistent with white-nose syndrome observed on bats from the eastern U.S." ?
and if there were no "characteristic conidia observed" and if this bat was not hibernating and presumably did not have white fungus (or did it??) what prompted the graduate student to collect the bat in the first place? Hopefully people aren't going around "collecting" bats for random testing?

any new info?

[PYoungbaer]

Cavergirl,

I didn't forget, just haven't had the answers until now. Anne Ballman, of the USGS lab in Madison, Wisconsin, which did the analysis, provided more detail. Basically, while the bat showed fungal colonization on the skin of the bat, it showed no lesions (pathological invasion into the skin tissues). Further, it didn't show any of the tell-tale curved conidia. Ballman says that fungi can produce hyphae without conidia. Also, she said that there were other fungi on the bat, also not unusual, so that the colonization may not have been from the WNS fungus, or the conidia may have been inadvertently knocked off the bat during handling. So, no other clinical signs, but the Geomyces destructans fungus was confirmed by genetic sequencing, and the PCR was run with positive and negative controls.

[wyandottecaver]

Peter,

is the PCR still considered valid in light of Hazels work showing that many Geomyces strains shared the markers? Or have they determined the PCR markers are unique to GD.

[PYoungbaer]

PCR is definitely still considered valid, within its limitations. As I mentioned above, it needs to be run with positive and negative controls, as it does run the risk of false positives. The genetic sequencing gives the confirmation to the PCR testing - at least within the segments analyzed (ITS)